Charter granted to the East India Company

Queen Elizabeth I of England grants a formal charter to the London merchants trading to the East Indies, hoping to break the Dutch monopoly of the spice trade in what is now Indonesia.

In the first few decades of its existence, the East India Company made far less progress in the East Indies than it did in India itself, where it acquired unequaled trade privileges from India’s Mogul emperors. By the 1630s, the company abandoned its East Indies operations almost entirely to concentrate on its lucrative trade of Indian textiles and Chinese tea. In the early 18th century, the company increasingly became an agent of British imperialism as it intervened more and more in Indian and Chinese political affairs. The company had its own military, which defeated the rival French East India Company in 1752 and the Dutch in 1759.

In 1773, the British government passed the Regulating Act to reign in the company. The company’s possessions in India were subsequently managed by a British governor general, and it gradually lost political and economic autonomy. The parliamentary acts of 1813 ended the East India Company’s trade monopoly, and in 1834 it was transformed into a managing agency for the British government of India.

In 1857, a revolt by Indian soldiers in the Bengal army of the company developed into a widespread uprising against British rule in India. After the so-called Indian Mutiny was crushed in 1858, the British government assumed direct control over India, and in 1873 the East India Company was dissolved.

Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

United States ends official relations with Nationalist China

Flags at both the American embassy in Taipei and the Taiwanese embassy in the United States are lowered for the last time as U.S. relations with Taiwan officially come to an end. On January 1, 1979 the United States officially recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China in Beijing.

The American decision to sever relations with Taiwan and grant recognition to the People’s Republic of China was hotly resented by representatives of the Chinese Nationalist government. In a brief ceremony accompanying the lowering of the Taiwanese flag, a Chinese Nationalist official declared that the action “did not mean that we are giving up our fight against communism.” He strongly criticized American President Jimmy Carter for cutting off ties with “a loyal friend and ally of the United States” in exchange for normalizing relations with “our enemy, the Chinese Communist regime.” American officials had little comment, except to assure those seeking visas and other services in Taiwan that the U.S. embassy would continue to help them until March 1, 1979. At that time, a “nongovernmental” office would take over those duties.

It was a rather quiet end to nearly 30 years of American refusal to grant official recognition to the communist government of mainland China. The U.S. decision to maintain strong relations with the Nationalist government on Taiwan had been the main roadblock to diplomatic relations between America and the People’s Republic of China. By the late 1970s, the desire for closer economic relations with communist China and the belief that diplomatic relations with the PRC might act as a buffer against Soviet aggression led U.S. officials to view continued relations with Taiwan as counterproductive. President Carter’s decision to sever relations with Taiwan removed that obstacle. One of the oldest and most antagonistic relationships of the Cold War seemed to be thawing.

Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

De Blasio appoints lifelong educator to be next schools chancellor

Miller Photography

Carmen Fariña has a history of innovation and leadership in the NYC public school system.

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio on Dec. 30 tapped Carmen Fariña, an accomplished educator and administrator with deep roots in the city’s school system, to be the next chancellor. With a 40-year career in education, Fariña becomes the first in more than a decade who won’t need a state waiver to take the job.

“Carmen is a real educator,” said UFT President Michael Mulgrew. “She has a deep knowledge of schools and our system, and is on record criticizing Mayor Bloomberg’s focus on high stakes testing. We look forward to working with her to help make sure every child has access to an excellent education.”

Fariña is widely respected in education circles.

“Carmen was always on the cutting edge,” said former UFT district representative Robert Zuckerberg, who worked closely with Fariña. “Her education background and abilities were extensive. She knows her business.”

Fariña’s record indicates she is likely to emphasize collaboration, the importance of middle schools and teacher training – and reject standardized testing as the greatest factor in measuring student learning.

Talking about changes that need to be made, Farina said at the press conference to announce her appointment, “There are things that need to happen, but they need to happen with people, not to people.”

Of all the candidates who were in the running to lead New York City schools, Fariña has the longest and closest ties to de Blasio. The mayor-elect’s children attended District 15 schools, and he was on the District 15 community school board that appointed Fariña in 2001. Many credit Fariña with mentoring de Blasio on education issues for his campaign for mayor.

Fariña’s classroom innovations made her a star early in her career in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. As a 4th-grade teacher at PS 29 in Cobble Hill in the 1970s, Fariña created a method of incorporating fiction and short stories into the curriculum that successfully engaged students and led to higher reading scores. When the Department of Education called on her to develop a citywide core curriculum and teacher training program based on her techniques, she was on her way.

Norman Fruchter, a longtime educational policy analyst and writer, recalled that in developing that curriculum, Fariña brought in a diversity of texts, both fiction and nonfiction, that was acceptable to a broad range of students. “That was a very successful curriculum,” said Fruchter, now an associate with the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

Fruchter, who sat on the District 15 school board in 1990s, recalled that the district’s middle schools then were “very problematic and troubled.” After he left the board, he watched approvingly as Fariña addressed the problem as superintendent by creating a number of smaller middle schools.

In 1989, Fariña was awarded the Public Service Award given each year by the Sloan Foundation and the Fund for the City of New York. In 1991, she was named principal of PS 6 on the Upper East Side. Ten years later, she was named superintendent of Brooklyn’s District 15 in Brooklyn. In 2003, she was tapped by Chancellor Joel Klein to head one of the 10 new regions and a year later was promoted to be his top instructional leader. She resigned that post after two years, said de Blasio at the Dec. 30 press conference, “because she didn’t want to continue policies she didn’t believe in.” De Blasio said the move showed her “conscience and character.”

Zuckerberg, who served as the UFT’s District 15 representative from 1986 to 2011, recalled that Fariña “was very collaborative.” Among the projects that Zuckerberg said he worked on with Fariña was the establishment of PS 372 in Park Slope as the Children’s School in 1992. The school pioneered the collaborative team-teaching model, now known as the integrated co-teaching model, in which a general education teacher and a special education teacher worked together in pre-K through fifth grade classes that include children with disabilities.

Fariña also instituted programs where teachers benefited, Zuckerberg said. “She had a lot of staff development going on in the district office and citywide,” he said. “Every licensed area was coming in for training on a monthly basis.” He said that teachers were encouraged to travel for training and conferences and then to use their new knowledge to train their colleagues. Guidance counselors, school psychologists and secretaries were also given opportunities for professional development, he said.

Fariña, at the announcement, said that “at heart I am a teacher. To me, all change happens in the classroom.”

U.S.S. Monitor sinks

On this day in 1862, the U.S.S. Monitor sinks in a storm off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Just nine months earlier, the ship had been part of a revolution in naval warfare when the ironclad dueled to a standstill with the C.S.S. Virginia (Merrimack) off Hampton Roads, Virginia, in one of the most famous naval battles in American history–the first time two ironclads faced each other in a naval engagement.

After the famous duel, the Monitor provided gun support on the James River for George B. McClellan’s Peninsular Campaign. By December 1862, it was clear the Monitor was no longer needed in Virginia, so she was sent to Beaufort, North Carolina, to join a fleet being assembled for an attack on Charleston, South Carolina. The Monitor served well in the sheltered waters of Chesapeake Bay, but the heavy, low-slung ship was a poor craft for the open sea. The U.S.S. Rhode Island towed the ironclad around the rough waters of Cape Hatteras. Since December is a treacherous time for any ship off North Carolina, the decision to move the Monitor could be considered questionable. As the Monitor pitched and swayed in the rough seas, the caulking around the gun turret loosened and water began to leak into the hull. More leaks developed as the journey continued. High seas tossed the craft, causing the ship’s flat armor bottom to slap the water. Each roll opened more seams, and by nightfall on December 30, the Monitor was in dire straits.

The Monitor’s commander, J.P. Bankhead, signaled the Rhode Island that he wished to abandon ship. The wooden side-wheeler pulled as close as safety allowed to the stricken ironclad, and two lifeboats were lowered to retrieve the crew. Many of the sailors were rescued, but some men were terrified to venture onto the deck in such rough seas. The ironclad’s pumps stopped working and the ship sank before 16 crew members could be rescued.

Although the Monitor’s service was brief, it signaled a new era in naval combat. The Virginia’s arrival off Hampton Roads terrified the U.S. Navy, but the Monitor leveled the playing field. Both sides had ironclads, and the advantage would go to the side that could build more of them. Northern industry would win that battle for the Union.

Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

U.S. Army massacres Sioux at Wounded Knee

In the tragic final chapter of America’s long war against the Plains Indians, the U.S. Cavalry kills 146 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

Tensions had been running high on Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota for months because of the growing popularity of a new Indian spiritual movement known as the Ghost Dance. Many of the Sioux at Pine Ridge had only recently been confined to reservations after long years of resistance, and they were deeply disheartened by the poor living conditions and deadening tedium of reservation life. The Ghost Dance movement taught that the Indians were defeated and confined to reservations because they had angered the gods by abandoning their traditional ways. If they practiced the Ghost Dance ritual and rejected white ways, many Sioux believed the gods would create the world anew, destroy the unbelievers, and bring back murdered Indians and the giant herds of bison.

By late 1890, Pine Ridge Indian agent James McLaughlin was alarmed by the movement’s increasing influence and its prediction that all non-believers—presumably including whites—would be wiped out. McLaughlin telegraphed a warning to Washington, D.C. that: “Indians are dancing in the snow and are wild and crazy. We need protection now.” While waiting for the cavalry to arrive, McLaughlin attempted to arrest Sitting Bull, the famous Sioux chief, who he mistakenly believed was a Ghost Dance supporter. U.S. authorities killed Sitting Bull during the arrest, increasing the tensions at Pine Ridge rather than defusing them.

On December 29, the 7th Cavalry under Colonel James Forsyth surrounded a band of Ghost Dancers under the Sioux Chief Big Foot near Wounded Knee Creek and demanded they surrender their weapons. Big Foot and his followers had no intentions of attacking anyone, but they were distrustful of the army and feared they would be attacked if they relinquished their guns. Nonetheless, the Sioux agreed to surrender and began turning over their guns. As that was happening, a scuffle broke out between an Indian and a soldier, and a shot was fired. Though no one is certain which side fired it, the ensuing melee was quick and brutal. Without arms and outnumbered, the Sioux were reduced to hand-to-hand fighting with knives, and they were cut down in a withering rain of bullets, many coming from the army’s rapid-fire repeating Hotchkiss guns. By the time the soldiers withdrew, 146 Indians were dead (including 44 women and 18 children) and 51 wounded. The 7th Cavalry had 25 dead and 39 wounded.

Although sometimes referred to as a battle, the conflict at Wounded Knee is best seen as a tragic and avoidable massacre. Surrounded by heavily armed troops, it is highly unlikely that Big Foot’s band would have deliberately sought a confrontation. Some historians speculate that the soldiers of Custer’s old 7th Cavalry were deliberately taking revenge for the regiment’s defeat at Little Bighorn in 1876. Whatever the motives, the army’s massacre ended the Ghost Dance movement and was the final major confrontation in America’s deadly war against the Plains Indians.

Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

The making of an English martyr

Archbishop Thomas Becket is brutally murdered in Canterbury Cathedral by four knights of King Henry II of England, apparently on orders of the king.

In 1155, Henry II appointed Becket as chancellor, a high post in the English government. Becket proved a skilled diplomat and won the trust of Henry, who nominated him as archbishop of Canterbury in 1162. The king hoped his friend would help in his efforts to curb the growing power of the church. However, soon after his consecration, the new archbishop emerged a zealous defender of the jurisdiction of the church over its own affairs. In 1164, Becket was forced to flee to France under fear of retaliation by the king.

He was later reconciled with Henry and in 1170 returned to Canterbury amid great public rejoicing. Soon afterward, against the objections of the pope, Henry had his son crowned co-king by the archbishop of York, and tensions again came to a head between Becket and Henry. At this time, perhaps merely in a moment of frustration, the king issued to his court the following public plea: “What a parcel of fools and dastards have I nourished in my house, and not one of them will avenge me of this one upstart clerk.” A group of Henry’s knights took the statement very seriously, and on December 29, Thomas Becket was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral.

The Christian world was shocked by Becket’s death, and in 1173 he was canonized a Catholic saint. In 1174, Henry was forced to do penance at his tomb, and his efforts to end the separation between church and state ceased. In 1220, Becket’s bones were transferred to Trinity Chapel in Canterbury Cathedral, which later became a popular site of English religious pilgrimage.

Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

Like this:

As a New York City school teacher for 27 years, I often struggled to understand why certain political and social constituencies would bash teacher’s on a professional, social, and economic level. A lesser person could develop a severe inferiority complex in my profession. However, I stood firm and continued to focus on my responsibilities.

Then, the explanation I’ve been seeking finally arrived. Irrefutable proof that my low opinion for those who claim to know my job better than I was misplaced. All those years, listening to non-pedagogues tell me how to be a pedagogue were really for my benefit. The ridicule, degradation, and wearing the moniker of 2nd-class professional were all meant to make me a better teacher. I just didn’t accept my inadequacy and accept my condition. In many rehabilitation centers, a patient must admit they have a problem before the healing process can begin. Now, after seeing this mathematical proof, I know the errors of my way. To past New York City mayors and Board of Education chancellors, I send a heartfelt apology for not endorsing your policies and voting against your administration. I take it all back.

Here, now, is the evidence. To my colleagues I say, “Accept the truth. It will set you free”.

Given:Knowledge = Power (Ex: University degrees are required for high level government and corporate positions.)

Time = Money (Ex: Overtime wage rate is 1-1/2 times standard wage rate. Income is reduced for excessive absence or lateness.)

Power = Work/ Time (Physics Law)

Proof:

Work = Time x Power (extrapolation)

Time = Work/ Power (extrapolation)

Money = Work/ Knowledge (Substitution)

Hence, a higher level of education should result in less money. (Ex: NYC teachers must have at least a master’s degree within 5 years of employment.)

Expressed differently, by decreasing teacher income, subject knowledge and skill will improve and student test scores should reflect and parallel the gains.

There you have it. Many thanks to the unknown individual who brought this proof to my attention. Being a teacher, I don’t have the initiative, nor creativity to have developed this myself.

Irrefutable!!!!!!!
—————————————————————————————
DISCLAIMER: This was an attempt by Mr.V to express disappointment with the evolution of his profession within New York City and the nation over the last quarter-century. No one should accept this post as anything other than sarcasm, wrapped in frustration.